Kim Jong-un's endgame

President Moon Jae-in, right, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have a big smile on their face during the April 27 summit in the truce village of Panmunjeom. / Yonhap

By Oh Young-jin

A week after the April 27 inter-Korean summit, much of the euphoria ― a strong sense of anticipation about lasting peace on the peninsula ― remains.

That sense is, however, based on wishful thinking after full-day coverage bombarded us with President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un holding hands, walking together and dining with their wives.

Kim spoke well, was witty and appeared in control. But, most of all, he could be seen to be "normal," in a departure from a crazy human butcher born out of the lineage of dictators with absolute power.

Thrown into the mix was the desperation South Koreans had ― if they didn't get peace this time, there could be a war, considering the U.S.-North Korean confrontation that preceded the North' sudden charm offensive.

Only South Koreans had this desperation, because their North Korean counterparts were only allowed to enjoy selected scenes from their leader's frolicking with Moon in the southern truce village of Panmunjeom, perhaps 100 meters from the inter-Korean border.

One commentator summed it up well with no sense of sarcasm: "The summit coverage was more a movie than a movie could be." After all, there was a willing audience ― scared by the threat of nuclear war ― with a great cast highlighted by the dictator who killed his half-brother in daylight at an international airport and had his uncle killed by anti-aircraft guns (Of course, there is a persistent rumor that Jang Song-thaek is alive because his execution was kept from the public gaze).

Making it even more interesting and anticipatory was that there would be a sequel ― the summit between Kim and U.S. President Donald Trump, which would determine the future of the peninsula and affect the regional balance of power at a far greater level than possible in the Moon-Kim summit. Trump welcomed his new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his hatchet man, and vowed to terminate the vicious cycle with North Korea, so to speak.

But there are sober minds of course.

Evans Revere, former U.S. deputy chief of mission in Seoul and meant to be the first ambassador to the North during the Clinton era, dubbed the Kim-Trump summit a potential "Neville Chamberlain moment," a reference to the disastrous attempt to appease Nazi leader Adolf Hitler that is seen as a lost chance to rein in the murderous Nazi regime and prevent World War II.

Revere said the North knew exactly what Trump wanted and would play him, citing as a tantalizing foretaste Pyongyang's moratorium decision on nuclear and missile testing. He said Trump would accept whatever the North offered, as long as it would make him look good to the world ― whether it means denuclearization or not.

Robert Gallucci, the leading U.S. negotiator in the lead-up to the 1994 Framework Agreement on the North's nuclear challenge, also dampened the hope of Trump chasing full denuclearization. Both Revere and Gallucci attended Thursday's Korea Forum organized by The Korea Times and its sister paper Hankook Ilbo.

Their sober views have been pushed to the margins thanks to the haphazard, unfounded optimism that this time the North would be different and separate itself from its nuclear arsenal. Again, the Revere wisdom boils down to the fact that during the previous two summits, the North didn't have a functioning nuclear force but now it has, so there are fewer reasons that it will give it up.

The situation may be comparable to the atmosphere in the lead-up to the Brexit vote. Intellectuals called for a "no" vote but populists and David Cameron, the prime minister who surrendered himself as hostage to the "leavers" camp, won the day. Now, much of the nation is regretting it. The chance is that, at least, Koreans may end up having regrets for being swept away by the heat-of-the-moment sentiment about peace.

Because he has triggered it, Kim Jong-un would appreciate the turmoil in the South, the Trump administration and by extension the rest of the world by switching adroitly from young dictator of one of the world's poorest countries to a kind of darling ― a case study for other dictators who want to legitimize their rule.

Would it be too much of a stretch if we assume that Kim thinks he can achieve what his father and grandfather wanted to but failed ― unifying the South on the North's terms? True, the South is economically many times bigger than the North, but was David bigger than Goliath in their duel? Maybe it is a case of paranoia.

The U.S. hurriedly signed a peace accord with the communist North Vietnamese and withdrew before Saigon fell.

How about the South asking Americans to leave? "Yankees go home" was the slogan of the 1970s and 1980s and irrespective of the student movement's zeitgeist at the time, some of the leading anti-America figures of the time are now in power.

They have mellowed but President Moon's security adviser Moon Jung-in recently talked about the reduced justification for a U.S. military presence after an inter-Korean peace treaty is signed.

So what would Kim's endgame be? Perhaps a Korea where the South is at his beck and call, with Americans no longer breathing down his neck, and with nuclear missiles on standby. What would it remind you of? I have one idea and I am sure yours would be quite similar to mine.

Oh Young-jin (foolsdie@gmail.com, foolsdie5@ktimes.com) is the digital managing editor of The Korea Times.

Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn
Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn